Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

For Data Collection Instruments

Impact Evaluation of

Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

OMB Clearance Request

For Data Collection Instruments

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. ED

American Institutes 

Impact Evaluation of

Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

OMB Clearance Request

For Data Collection Instruments, Part B

October 19, 2012

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. ED-IES-11-C-0066

Prepared by:

American Institutes for Research
Contents

Page

B. Description of Statistical Methods..............................................................................................1

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods.......................................................................1

2. Procedures for Data Collection..............................................................................................4

3. Procedures to Maximize Response Rates..............................................................................4

4. Pilot-Testing Instruments.......................................................................................................5

5. Names of Statistical and Methodological Consultants and Data Collectors..........................6

References........................................................................................................................................7

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Sampling Design .............................................................................................................3

Exhibit 2. MDES for Main Outcome Measures...............................................................................4

Appendixes

Appendix A. Teacher Survey

Appendix B. Principal Survey

Appendix C. District Interview

Appendix D. District Archival Records Collection Protocol
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

B. Description of Statistical Methods

The proposed study focuses on the 

leader evaluation system components that is consistent with current federal policy.

the study, we randomly assigned

districts: a control group will continue using 

system; a treatment group will implement 

system components, which includes feedback on instructional practice, principal leadership, and 

student growth. We will collect outcome data from both groups. 

average outcome levels in the control 

estimate of the outcome levels that would have been observed 

not received the treatment. Therefore, the difference in the average outcomes between the 

treatment schools and the control schools within the same district 

the treatment’s impact.

This approach to impact analysis 

members of the treatment and the 

their actual participation in the treatment. Following this approach, we will assess the 

the evaluation system components

control schools in average reading and mathematics achievement

which teachers at each school actually participate

activities associated with the treatment. The 

for each district and then pooled across districts to create an average 

in a meta-analysis). The resulting intent

being assigned to implement the study’s 

impact of participating in those activities. In some respects, these estimates mirror those likely to 

be observed in real-world settings

In the remainder of Part B, we address the follo

procedures for data collection, procedures to maximize response rates, pilot

instruments, and the names of statistical and methodological consultants and data collectors.

1. Respondent Universe and 

AIR established the sample of participating districts 

as described in the first OMB submission for the TLES Study (OMB 1850

TLES Study does not employ random sampling of districts or schools for the sake of 

generalizability, these districts were screened and recruited on the basis of 

required by the study design.

In the first step, AIR analyzed extant data on state policy. 

ineligible due to state initiatives in teacher and leader evaluation that would eliminate or reduce 

the service contrast in either 2012

Within the remaining 29 states, the Common Core Data from the U.S. Department of 

(2010) was then used to identify 457 districts that were of sufficient size. For a district to be 

eligible for the study, it was required to have at least

schools. 

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—1

Description of Statistical Methods

The proposed study focuses on the implementation and the impacts of a package of teacher and 

leader evaluation system components that is consistent with current federal policy.

ed 10–24 schools to 2 groups in each of the 9 participating 

group will continue using the district’s current teacher and leader evaluation 

implement the study’s package of teacher and leader evaluation 

includes feedback on instructional practice, principal leadership, and 

We will collect outcome data from both groups. Due to random assignment, t

control schools not receiving the treatment represent a relia

that would have been observed in the treatment schools had they

the treatment. Therefore, the difference in the average outcomes between the 

treatment schools and the control schools within the same district represent a reliable estimate of 

to impact analysis is known as the “intent-to-treat” approach, in which all 

the control groups are included in the impact analysis regardless of 

their actual participation in the treatment. Following this approach, we will assess the 

components on student achievement by comparing the treatment and 

ing and mathematics achievement, regardless of the extent to 

which teachers at each school actually participated in the teacher and leader evaluation system 

activities associated with the treatment. The impacts of the treatment will be estimated separately 

for each district and then pooled across districts to create an average impact of the treatments (

analysis). The resulting intent-to-treat estimates can be interpreted as the 

t the study’s teacher and leader evaluation system, rather than the 

activities. In some respects, these estimates mirror those likely to 

world settings. 

In the remainder of Part B, we address the following: respondent universe and sampling, 

procedures for data collection, procedures to maximize response rates, pilot-testing 

names of statistical and methodological consultants and data collectors.

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

AIR established the sample of participating districts with a multistep process approved by OMB 

submission for the TLES Study (OMB 1850-0890). Because the 

TLES Study does not employ random sampling of districts or schools for the sake of 

generalizability, these districts were screened and recruited on the basis of the characteristics 

d extant data on state policy. All districts in 21 states were deemed 

ineligible due to state initiatives in teacher and leader evaluation that would eliminate or reduce 

either 2012–13 or 2013–14.

Within the remaining 29 states, the Common Core Data from the U.S. Department of 

2010) was then used to identify 457 districts that were of sufficient size. For a district to be 

was required to have at least 10 schools, with at least 6 being elementary

a package of teacher and 

leader evaluation system components that is consistent with current federal policy. To conduct 

participating 

r and leader evaluation 

teacher and leader evaluation 

includes feedback on instructional practice, principal leadership, and 

random assignment, the 

schools not receiving the treatment represent a reliable 

in the treatment schools had they

the treatment. Therefore, the difference in the average outcomes between the 

represent a reliable estimate of 

treat” approach, in which all 

control groups are included in the impact analysis regardless of 

their actual participation in the treatment. Following this approach, we will assess the impacts of 

on student achievement by comparing the treatment and the 

, regardless of the extent to 

in the teacher and leader evaluation system 

nt will be estimated separately 

of the treatments (as 

treat estimates can be interpreted as the impact of 

rather than the 

activities. In some respects, these estimates mirror those likely to 

wing: respondent universe and sampling, 

testing the 

names of statistical and methodological consultants and data collectors.

a multistep process approved by OMB 

0890). Because the 

TLES Study does not employ random sampling of districts or schools for the sake of 

characteristics 

ll districts in 21 states were deemed 

ineligible due to state initiatives in teacher and leader evaluation that would eliminate or reduce 

Within the remaining 29 states, the Common Core Data from the U.S. Department of Education 

2010) was then used to identify 457 districts that were of sufficient size. For a district to be 

being elementary
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

Of the 457 districts, 100 expressed interest in speaking with us

study team interviewed the district contact

telephone using the screening protocol approved by OMB in May 2012. The screening protocol 

was used to determine the district’s eligibility to participate in the study, based on its intended 

evaluation system practices for 2012

value-added modeling. The following criteria were used in this determination:

 Teacher evaluation system

 The current classroom observation protocol used for evaluating teachers is not 

comparable to FFT or CLASS or is not implemented intensively (e.g., does not 

include comprehensive yearly training from the provider of the protocol). 

 Tenured teachers are obse

who are identified as having performance issues may be observed more often. 

 The current teacher evaluation system does not include a teacher effectiveness 

measure based on value

 Leader evaluation system. 

degree assessment tool.

 Data system. The current data systems include student assessment data and teacher

student-course ID linkages required for conducting value

The screening process and subsequent recruitment conversations with interested districts 

in 19 site visits to eligible and interested districts.

these districts, eligible schools were identifed through dialogue with district officials about 

competing intiatives and other barriers to school participation, and 

were made to the principals of the 

memoranda of understanding indicating their willingness to be randomly assigned as part of the 

study.

The final sample includes 4 districts using FFT and 

participating district, the participating schools have been randomly assigned to one of two 

groups: (1) piloting the evaluation system 

treatment group) and (2) continuing 

We anticipate approximately 21 mathematics and reading teachers per school, each teaching an 

average of 25 students, in a given academic year. Thus, the total universe of teachers will be 

about 2,940; the total universe of students will be about

structure of the sampling design.

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—2

100 expressed interest in speaking with us. For each of these districts, the 

study team interviewed the district contact as well as a district data/assessment expert via 

ne using the screening protocol approved by OMB in May 2012. The screening protocol 

was used to determine the district’s eligibility to participate in the study, based on its intended 

evaluation system practices for 2012–13 and 2013–14 and the adequacy of its data systems for 

added modeling. The following criteria were used in this determination:

Teacher evaluation system.

The current classroom observation protocol used for evaluating teachers is not 

comparable to FFT or CLASS or is not implemented intensively (e.g., does not 

include comprehensive yearly training from the provider of the protocol). 

Tenured teachers are observed at most twice a year. Teachers on probation or teachers 

who are identified as having performance issues may be observed more often. 

The current teacher evaluation system does not include a teacher effectiveness 

measure based on value-added modeling.

Leader evaluation system. The current leader evaluation system is not using a 360

The current data systems include student assessment data and teacher

course ID linkages required for conducting value-added modeling.

The screening process and subsequent recruitment conversations with interested districts 

19 site visits to eligible and interested districts. Nine districts agreed to participate. Within 

these districts, eligible schools were identifed through dialogue with district officials about 

competing intiatives and other barriers to school participation, and presentations about the study

the eligible schools. A total of 140 schools in the 

memoranda of understanding indicating their willingness to be randomly assigned as part of the 

districts using FFT and 5 districts using CLASS. Within each 

participating district, the participating schools have been randomly assigned to one of two 

evaluation system components provided through TLES (i.e., 

treatment group) and (2) continuing with “business as usual” (i.e., the control group). 

We anticipate approximately 21 mathematics and reading teachers per school, each teaching an 

average of 25 students, in a given academic year. Thus, the total universe of teachers will be 

of students will be about 73,500. (See Exhibit 1 for the complete 

.) 

. For each of these districts, the 

as well as a district data/assessment expert via 

ne using the screening protocol approved by OMB in May 2012. The screening protocol 

was used to determine the district’s eligibility to participate in the study, based on its intended 

its data systems for 

The current classroom observation protocol used for evaluating teachers is not 

comparable to FFT or CLASS or is not implemented intensively (e.g., does not 

include comprehensive yearly training from the provider of the protocol). 

rved at most twice a year. Teachers on probation or teachers 

who are identified as having performance issues may be observed more often. 

The current teacher evaluation system does not include a teacher effectiveness 

The current leader evaluation system is not using a 360-

The current data systems include student assessment data and teachereling.

The screening process and subsequent recruitment conversations with interested districts resulted 

districts agreed to participate. Within 

these districts, eligible schools were identifed through dialogue with district officials about 

presentations about the study

. A total of 140 schools in the 9 districts signed 

memoranda of understanding indicating their willingness to be randomly assigned as part of the 

LASS. Within each 

participating district, the participating schools have been randomly assigned to one of two 

TLES (i.e., the 

control group). 

We anticipate approximately 21 mathematics and reading teachers per school, each teaching an 

average of 25 students, in a given academic year. Thus, the total universe of teachers will be 

Exhibit 1 for the complete 
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

District

Teacher 

Observation 

Instrument

Study 

Group

District 1 FFT

Treatment

Control

District 2 FFT

Treatment

Control

District 3 FFT

Treatment

Control

District 4 FFT

Treatment

Control

District 5 CLASS

Treatment

Control

District 6 CLASS

Treatment

Control

District 7 CLASS

Treatment

Control

District 8 CLASS

Treatment

Control

District 9 CLASS

Treatment

Control

Totals

To assess the statistical power of the study design, we

analysis for group randomized trials (Schochet, 2008; Spybrook, Raudenbush, Congdon, & 

Martinez, 2009) to calculate the variance components and estimate 

effect sizes (MDESs) for student achievement outcomes, 

mobility outcomes, and intermediate outcomes (i.e., decisions of key actors) as measured by the

teacher survey. We derive assumptions 

the outcome measures that are between schools and between teachers within schools, the 

percentage of outcome variance explained by covariates, the number of districts and 

of schools per district, the number of teachers per school, the number of students per 

the number of teachers observed per school. 

we have calculated MDES ranges for our main outcome measures (Exhibit 2).

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—3

Exhibit 1. Sampling Design

Number of 

Schools (unit of 

randomization)

Number of Teachers 

(based on estimate of 

21 teachers per school)

Number of Students in 

study (based on estimate of 

25 students per 

Treatment 5 105

6 126

Treatment 8 168

7 147

Treatment 12 252

12 252

Treatment 7 147

7 147

Treatment 9 189

9 189

Treatment 7 147

6 126

Treatment 11 231

11 231

Treatment 6 126

7 147

Treatment 5 105

5 105

140 2,940

assess the statistical power of the study design, we draw on recent literature on power 

analysis for group randomized trials (Schochet, 2008; Spybrook, Raudenbush, Congdon, & 

to calculate the variance components and estimate the minimum detectable 

) for student achievement outcomes, teacher practice outcomes, 

intermediate outcomes (i.e., decisions of key actors) as measured by the

assumptions from prior studies about the proportion of the variance in 

the outcome measures that are between schools and between teachers within schools, the 

percentage of outcome variance explained by covariates, the number of districts and 

the number of teachers per school, the number of students per 

the number of teachers observed per school. To reflect both optimistic and cautious assumptions,

ranges for our main outcome measures (Exhibit 2).

Number of Students in 

study (based on estimate of 

25 students per teacher)

2,625

3,150

4,200

3,675

6,300

6,300

3,675

3,675

4,725

4,725

3,675

3,150

5,775

5,775

3,150

3,675

2,625

2,625

73,500

draw on recent literature on power 

analysis for group randomized trials (Schochet, 2008; Spybrook, Raudenbush, Congdon, & 

the minimum detectable 

teacher practice outcomes, teacher 

intermediate outcomes (i.e., decisions of key actors) as measured by the

proportion of the variance in 

the outcome measures that are between schools and between teachers within schools, the 

percentage of outcome variance explained by covariates, the number of districts and the number 

the number of teachers per school, the number of students per teacher, and 

To reflect both optimistic and cautious assumptions,
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

Exhibit 

Outcome Measure

Student achievement

Teacher practice

Teacher mobility

Intermediate outcomes as 

the teacher survey

2. Procedures for Data Collection

AIR project staff will manage data collection and ensur

collection instruments for which 

Appendixes A–D. They include the teacher survey, 

and the district archival records collection protocol,

preceding Part A of this submission.

teachers responsible for reading or mathematics i

survey will be administered online to all 

interview will be conducted via tele

be sent via e-mail to each study district. The 

timeline:

1. January 2013. Student records, and t

administration.

2. April–May, 2013. Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

3. July–September, 2013. Student records, 

and teacher and principal records for mobility analyses

4. January–March, 2014. T

5. April–May, 2014. Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

6. July–September, 2014. Student records, 

and teacher and principal records for mobility

3. Procedures to Maximize Response Rates

Based on our extensive experience with administering surveys in a variety of schools, districts, 

and states, including a recent Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching (IPS) study funded 

by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we anticipate the

percent for the teacher and the principal surveys. We anti

district interviews and the archival records

because it is the most recent example of teacher and principal 

the issue of evaluation systems. The IPS

teacher survey and 76 percent on the school leader survey

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—4

Exhibit 2. MDES for Main Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure MDES

(Optimistic—Cautious)

0.08–0.11

0.15–0.16

9.4–9.7 percent (based on 20% base mobility 

rate in control group) 

as measured by 0.18

2. Procedures for Data Collection

data collection and ensure quality and timeliness. T

for which clearance is requested in this submission are included in 

. They include the teacher survey, the principal survey, the district interview, 

district archival records collection protocol, as summarized in the study description 

of this submission. The teacher survey will be administered online to all 

teachers responsible for reading or mathematics instruction in any of Grades K–8

survey will be administered online to all the principals of the study schools. The district 

telephone with each study district. Archival record

mail to each study district. The above data collections are specified in the following 

Student records, and teacher and principal records for online survey

Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

Student records, local teacher performance evaluation 

eacher and principal records for mobility analyses.

Teacher and principal records for online survey administration

Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

Student records, local teacher performance evaluation 

eacher and principal records for mobility analyses.

3. Procedures to Maximize Response Rates

Based on our extensive experience with administering surveys in a variety of schools, districts, 

and states, including a recent Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching (IPS) study funded 

Gates Foundation, we anticipate the response rate to be approximately 85 

principal surveys. We anticipate a 100 percent response 

archival records requests. We reference the IPS study in particular 

it is the most recent example of teacher and principal surveys conducted by AIR

The IPS study achieved response rates of 81 percent

on the school leader survey. However, because the IPS surveys 

(based on 20% base mobility 

quality and timeliness. The data 

in this submission are included in 

district interview, 

as summarized in the study description 

nistered online to all 

8. The principal 

study schools. The district 

Archival record requests will 

above data collections are specified in the following 

online survey

Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

performance evaluation ratings, 

online survey administration.

Teacher and principals surveys, and district interviews.

performance evaluation ratings, 

Based on our extensive experience with administering surveys in a variety of schools, districts, 

and states, including a recent Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching (IPS) study funded 

approximately 85 

response rate for 

requests. We reference the IPS study in particular 

conducted by AIR around 

percent on the 

he IPS surveys 
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

were longer than our proposed surveys by roughly 60 percent, we believe that our response rate 

approximations are appropriate estimates. 

The following procedures will be used to ensure high response rates: 

 Obtaining high response rates depends in part on the quality of the instruments. 

will pilot and subsequently refine all instruments to ensure 

easily understandable, which 

data collection activities and thus increase response rates. 

information on procedures designed to 

 Obtaining high response rates also depends in pa

The teacher and principal surveys require an administration time of approximately

30 minutes. The district interview is restricted to 90 minutes, which is reasonable given 

that districts are highly motivated to partic

 To further ensure a high response rate on the 

Web-based administration. 

as necessary, and a hard-copy pencil

any respondent who requests one. Approximately

will begin the process of survey follow

about the survey. After 2 

approximately 10-day intervals. During the third call, we will offer to complete the 

questionnaire as a telephone interview. Using these procedures, the research team has 

extensive experience administering Web

 District coordinators employed by the study will be responsible for maintaining contact 

with the respondents as well as garnering the support of school principals

survey completion. 

 The study will offer a social incentive to 

the data collections as part of a high

information to the districts and 

 Teacher survey respondents in both the treatm

small amount of compensation in return for participating in 

This is to make them feel that we value their time and participation

them to participate and increasing 

section 9, Payment or Gifts. 

4. Pilot-Testing Instruments

The teacher and principal surveys will be 

than 10 respondents per instrument) and revised to ensure that the questions are 

simple as possible for the respondents to complete. 

Pilot test subjects will include teachers and principals

treatment educators (e.g., participating in a pilot system while an existing evaluation system is in 

place. A think-aloud, or cognitive lab

respondents will be asked to complete the draft instrument, explain their thinking as they 

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—5

were longer than our proposed surveys by roughly 60 percent, we believe that our response rate 

approximations are appropriate estimates. 

The following procedures will be used to ensure high response rates: 

Obtaining high response rates depends in part on the quality of the instruments. 

will pilot and subsequently refine all instruments to ensure that they are user

easily understandable, which will increase participants’ willingness to participate in the 

data collection activities and thus increase response rates. See the next section for 

information on procedures designed to ensure instrument quality.

Obtaining high response rates also depends in part on the length of the instruments. 

The teacher and principal surveys require an administration time of approximately

The district interview is restricted to 90 minutes, which is reasonable given 

that districts are highly motivated to participate in the study. 

To further ensure a high response rate on the teacher survey, AIR will not rely entirely on 

based administration. AIR will conduct follow-up activities with telephone prompts, 

copy pencil-and-paper survey questionnaire will be mailed to 

any respondent who requests one. Approximately 2 weeks after the initial mailing, we 

will begin the process of survey follow-up. We will send a letter reminding respondents 

2 more weeks, we will implement a series of 3 follow

day intervals. During the third call, we will offer to complete the 

questionnaire as a telephone interview. Using these procedures, the research team has 

extensive experience administering Web- and e-mail-based surveys with high response rates.

coordinators employed by the study will be responsible for maintaining contact 

respondents as well as garnering the support of school principals

will offer a social incentive to the respondents by stressing the importance of 

the data collections as part of a high-profile study that will provide much

istricts and the schools. 

espondents in both the treatment and the control groups will receive a 

small amount of compensation in return for participating in the data collection activities. 

This is to make them feel that we value their time and participation, thus encouraging 

them to participate and increasing the response rate. For specific details, please see Part A 

Gifts. 

Testing Instruments

The teacher and principal surveys will be pilot-tested with small numbers of respondents (fewer 

than 10 respondents per instrument) and revised to ensure that the questions are as 

respondents to complete. 

teachers and principals who are in similar situations as the study’s 

treatment educators (e.g., participating in a pilot system while an existing evaluation system is in 

aloud, or cognitive lab, format will be used for pilot testing, whereby 

sked to complete the draft instrument, explain their thinking as they 

were longer than our proposed surveys by roughly 60 percent, we believe that our response rate 

Obtaining high response rates depends in part on the quality of the instruments. The team 

they are user-friendly and 

increase participants’ willingness to participate in the 

See the next section for 

the length of the instruments. 

The teacher and principal surveys require an administration time of approximately

The district interview is restricted to 90 minutes, which is reasonable given 

will not rely entirely on 

up activities with telephone prompts, 

questionnaire will be mailed to 

weeks after the initial mailing, we 

up. We will send a letter reminding respondents 

follow-up calls at 

day intervals. During the third call, we will offer to complete the 

questionnaire as a telephone interview. Using these procedures, the research team has 

based surveys with high response rates.

coordinators employed by the study will be responsible for maintaining contact 

respondents as well as garnering the support of school principals for encouraging 

respondents by stressing the importance of 

profile study that will provide much-needed 

control groups will receive a 

data collection activities. 

thus encouraging 

For specific details, please see Part A 

tested with small numbers of respondents (fewer 

as clear and 

o are in similar situations as the study’s 

treatment educators (e.g., participating in a pilot system while an existing evaluation system is in 

testing, whereby the 

sked to complete the draft instrument, explain their thinking as they 
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

constructed their responses, and identify the following: 

 Questions or response options that are difficult to understand

 Questions in which none of the response options is an accurate description of 

respondent’s circumstance

 Questions that call for a single response but more than one of the options is an 

appropriate response.

 Terms that are not defined that should be defined

 Questions for which the information requested is unavailable

5. Names of Statistical and Methodological Consultants 

and Data Collectors

This project is being conducted by AIR 

Michael Garet is the principal investigator

task leaders from AIR contributing to the study methods and data collection are 

Jinok Kim, Anja Kurki, and David Manzeske. 

Garet, Andrew Wayne, David Manzeske

project staff will carry out the data 

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—6

constructed their responses, and identify the following: 

or response options that are difficult to understand.

in which none of the response options is an accurate description of 

circumstance.

that call for a single response but more than one of the options is an 

that are not defined that should be defined.

for which the information requested is unavailable.

5. Names of Statistical and Methodological Consultants 

by AIR under contract to the U.S. Department of Education. 

investigator, and Andrew Wayne is the project director

task leaders from AIR contributing to the study methods and data collection are Seth Brown, 

Jinok Kim, Anja Kurki, and David Manzeske. The instruments were developed by Michael 

Andrew Wayne, David Manzeske, Seth Brown, and additional project staff at AIR

data collection activities.

in which none of the response options is an accurate description of a 

that call for a single response but more than one of the options is an 

under contract to the U.S. Department of Education. 

project director. The senior 

Seth Brown, 

The instruments were developed by Michael 

and additional project staff at AIR. AIR 
Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

Schochet, P. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. 

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33

Spybrook, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Congdon, R., & Martinez, A. (2009). 

longitudinal and multilevel research: Documentation for the Optimal Design software.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems—7

References

Schochet, P. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. 

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62–87.

Spybrook, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Congdon, R., & Martinez, A. (2009). Optimal design for 

longitudinal and multilevel research: Documentation for the Optimal Design software.

ity of Michigan.

Schochet, P. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs.